This is the year in which Britain's moribund political system could be changed, yet one might be forgiven for not realising the importance of May's referendum on electoral reform. Coverage so far has revolved around one man – Nick Clegg. A yes vote would provide a much-needed boost for the Liberal Democrat leader, while leaving many Tories seething. A no vote would destroy Clegg's remaining credibility, leading to infighting within his party and destabilising the coalition.

This narrow party-political analysis understates the importance of the alternative vote to the culture of our elections, and presupposes an outcome based on old habits. When they were the second party of opposition, vying with Labour for the affections of the centre-left, the assumption was that under AV the Lib Dems would scoop up the second preferences of Labour supporters, and vice versa. Now in the world of centre-right coalition nobody knows which party might benefit most from a change to the system – allowing the argument to be had exclusively on the principle.

Currently more than half of all seats could be classed as "safe" – those which, since 1970, have stayed in the hands of one party. Under AV, with candidates having to secure more than 50% of votes cast, voters will have a greater influence on the politicians they elect, and the days of complacent MPs getting by on the support of their hard core will be over. Tactical voting – when people hold their noses and opt for the least-worst candidate as their only choice – will also become a thing of the past.

What is noticeable from the somewhat chaotic and cavalier no campaign is that it does not dare to defend the current first-past-the-post system. Since 1945 Britain has exported its peculiar voting habits to Albania, Macedonia and Ukraine, only for all three paragons of democracy to move on. With few positives to fall back on, the no camp focuses on a negative and confused message, lurching between attacking AV as a paltry change, and as a grave danger to the British way of life.

Research published tomorrow by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows just how disenfranchised voters are. Last May's election was determined by fewer than 460,000 voters – 1.6% of the electorate – in just 111 constituencies.

Across the country millions went to the ballot box knowing that their decisions would not make a blind bit of difference. According to the IPPR, some 21 million votes were wasted – 71% of all votes cast. For decades, allegiances have shifted, while the political machinery has not.

Labour modernisers – ranging from Compass on the left to Progress on the Blairite wing – are all signed up electoral reformers. A yearning to change the way Britain does politics was one of the most attractive features of Labour's 1997 appeal. This is one of the great challenges for Ed Miliband. Perhaps understandably he has given free rein to his party to campaign on both sides, while notionally supporting AV (which, after all, was in his party's 2010 manifesto).

The Labour leader should nail his colours to the reformist mast. Political calculation does not come into it – if Labour voters want to give the government a kicking, as is usually the way with referendums, they can either vote no (anti-Clegg) or yes (anti-Cameron).

Nobody would claim that constitutional reform is top of voters' priorities at a time of swingeing economic cuts, VAT rises and potential social strife. But the national malaise is exacerbated by a sense felt by millions that they have little say in the democratic process. Electoral reform is a small step to improving the state of British politics. But it is a start.